Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in HFpEF patients-A propensity-score-matched analysis

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) addresses the significant overlap of these conditions, often found in patients with comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. HFpEF is characterized by diastolic dysfunction, leading to high left atrial pressures and atrial remodeling, which promotes AF. While treatments for HFpEF are limited, recent studies suggest CA can reduce AF burden, improve quality-of-life, and lower hospitalization rates. Current and upcoming randomized trials aim to establish CA's role as a first-line therapy for AF in HFpEF, potentially transforming patient outcomes.

Rate Versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

Atrial fibrillation with Heart Failure is a constellation of co-morbid conditions that now constitutes a major cardiovascular epidemic, with HF now the most common complication of AF. Mechanistically, both conditions promote substrate disease in the atrium and ventricle. AF is an independent rixk factor in HF progression and pump failure death. While early studies comparing rhythm control antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control drugs showed no significant benefit in cardiovascular outcomes, AF did promote HF emergence and hospitalizations. Newer rhythm control strategies with present day antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation support benefits in cardiovascular outcomes in AF with HF. Catheter ablation improved HF outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction but further and larger studies are needed, especially for AF with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post-Ablation Across Heart Failure Categories: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Previous studies have provided evidence of reduced recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), all-cause mortality, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations after catheter ablation (CA) in both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aggregate data comparing the efficacy of AF ablation and clinical endpoints in HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) to HFrEF and HFpEF are lacking.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining any differences in AF recurrence rate, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalizations among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF who underwent AF ablation. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed until October 31, 2023.

Results

A total of seven studies comprising 3,795 patients were retained: HFrEF 1,281 (33.8%), HFmrEF 870 (22.9%), and HFpEF 1,644 (43.3%). After median follow-up of 24 months, there was no significant difference in rate of AF recurrence between the three HF categories: HFrEF 40% (30-49%), HFmrEF 35% (28-43%); and HFpEF 35% (25-45%). Only two studies which included outcomes in the three HF categories were identified. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization combined after ablation or other rhythm control compared to other conservative management were: HFrEF 0.77 (0.63 - 0.94); HFmrEF 0.81 (0.55 - 1.20); and HFpEF 0.74 (0.55 - 1.00).

Conclusions

CA has similar efficacy in the long-term resolution of AF among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. Further studies are needed to provide a robust analysis on the potential impact of CA on all-cause mortality.

Efficacy and limitation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the long-term outcomes and subclinical HF after nonparoxysmal AF ablation in HFpEF patients have not been fully evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One-hundred-ninety nonparoxysmal AF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% who underwent first-time AF ablation were studied. HFpEF was diagnosed from a history of congestive HF and/or combined criteria of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration and transthoracic echocardiogram parameters, including average septal-lateral E/e' and tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity. Ninety-five patients with HFpEF (HFpEF group) were compared with 95 patients without HF (CNT group). Low voltage area (LVA) was defined as an area with a bipolar electrogram of <0.5 mV covering >5% of the total left atrial surface. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening HF. The secondary endpoint was subclinical HFpEF defined from NT-proBNP concentration and average septal-lateral E/e' or tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity at 6-12 months after the procedure irrespective of the rhythm. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the primary composite endpoint did not differ between the two groups (mean follow-up period 707 ± 75 days, log-rank p = 0.5330). However, significantly more patients in the HFpEF group reached the secondary endpoint (42 [44%] vs. 13 [14%], p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a high preablation NT-proBNP (odds ratio [OR] 1.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.001-1.002, p = 0.0040) and the existence of LVA (OR 5.983, 95% CI 1.463-31.768, p = 0.0194) independently predicted the secondary endpoint in HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSION

After nonparoxysmal AF ablation, mortality of HFpEF patients was not inferior compared to patients without coexisting HF. However, subclinical HF occasionally persisted especially in HFpEF patients with a high preprocedure NT-proBNP concentration and LVA.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: catheter ablation vs. standard medical therapy - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines advocate for catheter ablation (CA) over standard medical therapy (SMT) for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the effectiveness of CA vs. SMT in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Embase until February 2024 were systematically searched. Given the limited number of randomized studies, propensity score-matched observational studies comparing CA with SMT in AF patients with HFpEF were also included. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight studies that enrolled 17,717 SMT and 2537 CA patients were included. CA was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85). The risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.83), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), and AF recurrence (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73) were also lower in the CA group.

CONCLUSION

CA demonstrated significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits compared to SMT in the HFpEF population.

Is sinus rhythm maintenance after repeat catheter ablation effective in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance (SRM) after catheter ablation (CA) of AF (AFCA) in HFpEF has shown to reduce adverse events as compared to medical treatment. However, it remains unclear whether SRM after a repeat CA for recurrent AF has the same effect as SRM after the initial CA in patients with AF and HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 244 AF patients with HFpEF who maintained SR after repeat AFCA (repeat CA-SRM group, n = 54) and initial AFCA (initial CA-SRM group, n = 190). HFpEF were defined as HFA-PEFF score of 5 or 6 and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50% before the initial CA. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, or strokes within 3 years after the initial or repeat CA. The incidence of the primary endpoint was similar between the repeat CA-SRM and initial CA-SRM groups (3 of 54 [5.6%] vs. 8 of 190 [4.2%], p = .423 by a log-rank test). There was no significant difference in the 12-month HFA-PEFF score and the proportion of a 12-month HFA-PEFF score <5 between the repeat CA-SRM and the initial CA-SRM groups (5 [4,6] vs. 5 [4,6], p = .915, and 46% vs. 35%, p = .426, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AF and HFpEF diagnosed by HFA-PEFF score, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and strokes was similar between the repeat CA-SRM and initial CA-SRM groups.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in women with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coincide. Female sex is associated with both increased prevalence of HFpEF and reduced therapeutic efficacy of catheter ablation of AF. This sub-analysis of the previously published AFFECT-study evaluates outcome after cryoballoon-ablation in women with and without HFpEF.

Methods

One-hundred-and-two patients (LVEF ≥ 50%) scheduled for cryoballoon-ablation of AF were prospectively enrolled. Forty-two were female. Comprehensive baseline assessment included echocardiography, stress echocardiography, six-minute-walk-test, biomarker- and quality-of-life-assessment (QoL, SF-36), and was repeated at follow-up ≥12 months after AF-ablation. Baseline parameters, procedural characteristics and outcome after AF-ablation were compared between women with and without HFpEF.

Results

Women with HFpEF (n = 20) were characterized by higher median left atrial volume index (35.8 ml/m2 vs. 25.8 ml/m2, P < 0.001), left ventricular hypertrophy (median left ventricular mass index: 92.0 g/m2 vs. 83.0 g/m2, P = 0.027), reduced distance in the 6-min-walk-test (median: 453 m vs. 527 m, P = 0.008) and higher left atrial pressures (median: 14.0 mmHg vs.9.5 mmHg, P = 0.008) compared to women without HFpEF (n = 21). During follow-up, HFpEF-patients more often experienced AF-related re-hospitalization (36.8% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.039) and numerically higher AF-recurrence-rates (57.9% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.109). There was no significant improvement of heart failure-related symptoms, echocardiographic parameters and cardiac biomarkers levels. QoL showed no significant improvement in both subgroups. Women with HFpEF still exhibited a lower SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score vs. women without HFpEF (median: 41.2 vs. 52.1, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Women with HFpEF constitute a distinct subgroup with high rates of AF-related events after AF-ablation, and persistence of both symptoms and functional hallmarks of HFpEF. Consideration of sex-specific cardiac co-morbidities is crucial for personalization and optimization of AF-therapy.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05603611.

Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic therapy for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) treated with catheter ablation (CA) vs antiarrhythmic therapy (AAT) are not well known.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared morbidity and mortality of patients with AF and HFpEF treated with CA vs AAT.

METHODS

AF and HFpEF patients from January 2017 to June 2023 were identified in TriNetX, a large global population-based database. Patients with prior diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or crossover between AAT and CA were excluded. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, type of AF, comorbidities, and cardiovascular medications were compared. The 2 groups were 1:1 propensity score matched for outcomes analysis. All-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accident/transient ischemic attack, and acute heart failure were compared with Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CA (n = 1959) and AAT (n = 7689) were 1:1 propensity score matched, yielding 3632 patients with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Compared with AAT, CA was associated with decreased mortality (9.2% vs 20.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.431; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.359-0.518; P < .001). In addition, CA was associated with reduced HFpEF (HR, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.550-0.741; P < .001) and acute HFrEF (HR, 0.645; 95% CI, 0.452-0.920; P = .015). There was no difference in composite of cerebrovascular accident/transient ischemic attack (HR, 0.935; 95% CI, 0.725-1.207; P = .607).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study of patients with AF and HFpEF, CA was associated with lower mortality and risk of acute heart failure compared with AAT.

Catheter ablation versus medical therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare catheter ablation and medical therapy (antiarrhythmics for rhythm or rate control) in patients with AF and HFpEF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Outcomes were the composite end points of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all-cause rehospitalization, and HF hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included 20,257 patients from 8 studies. Of those, 3 were derived from RCTs, either through post hoc analysis or subgroup analysis, and 5 were observational studies. The median follow-up ranged from 24.6 to 61.2 months. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.83; P = .001; I2 = 66%), all-cause death (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99; P = .047; I2 = 61%), cardiovascular death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P = .014; I2 = 22%), and HF hospitalization (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.82; P = .011; I2 = 87%).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Focus on the Latest Clinical Evidence

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure are two common cardiovascular conditions that frequently coexist, and it has been widely demonstrated that in patients with chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. Nevertheless, there is no unanimous consensus in the literature on how to approach this category of patients and which therapeutic strategy (rhythm control or frequency control) is the most favorable in terms of prognosis; moreover, there is still a lack of data comparing the different ablative techniques of atrial fibrillation in terms of efficacy, and many of the current trials do not consider current ablative techniques such as high-power short-duration ablation index protocol for radiofrequency pulmonary vein isolation. Eventually, while several RCTs have widely proved that in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, ablation of atrial fibrillation is superior to medical therapy alone, there is no consensus regarding those with preserved ejection fraction. For these reasons, in this review, we aim to summarize the main updated evidence guiding clinical decision in this complex scenario, with a special focus on the most recent trials and the latest meta-analyses that examined the role of catheter ablation (CA) in rhythm control in patients with AF and HF.

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared.

RESULTS

In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m2, PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m2; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement.

CONCLUSION

In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function.

Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) effectively treats atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improving clinical outcomes. However, its benefits for AF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still unclear.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for studies investigating outcomes of CA in AF patients with HFpEF. Efficacy indicators included freedom from AF and antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) free AF elimination. Safety indicators comprised total complications, HF admission, all-cause admission, and all-cause mortality. Sixteen studies with 20,796 patients included in our research.

Results

The comprehensive analysis demonstrated that, when comparing CA with medical therapy in HFpEF, no significant differences were observed in terms of HF admissions, all-cause admissions, and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.12-1.51, P = 0.19), (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.48-1.27, P = 0.31), and (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.83-1.44, P = 0.51)], while freedom from AF was significantly higher in CA (OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.99-11.54, P < 0.00001). Compared with HFrEF, CA in HFpEF showed similar rates of freedom from AF, AAD-free AF elimination, total complications, and all-cause admission were similar [(OR:0.91; 95% CI: 0.71,1.17, P =0.47), (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.50-1.86, P = 0.93), (OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.47-3.41, P = 0.64), (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.73; P = 0.63)]. However, CA in HFpEF was associated with lower rates of HF admission and all-cause mortality [(OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.60; P = 0.0002), (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.85; P = 0.02)]. Compared with patients without HF, CA in HFpEF patients exhibited lower rates of AAD-free AF elimination (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.75; P = 0.001). However, their rates of freedom from AF and total complications were similar [(OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.02; P = 0.06), (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.90; P = 0.38)].

Conclusion

This meta-analysis conducted provided a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of CA in patients with AF and HFpEF. The results suggest that CA may represent a valuable treatment strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier (CRD42024514169).

Atrial fibrillation and risk of adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. Contemporary classification of HF categorizes it into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aggregate data comparing the risk profile of AF between these three HF categories are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining any significant differences in AF-associated all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality (CV), and stroke between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until February 28, 2023. Data were combined using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies comprising 248 323 patients were retained: HFrEF 123 331 (49.7%), HFmrEF 40 995 (16.5%), and HFpEF 83 997 (33.8%). Pooled baseline AF prevalence was 36% total population, 30% HFrEF, 36% HFmrEF, and 42% HFpEF. AF was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in the total population with pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.21), HFmrEF (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05-1.50) and HFpEF (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09-1.24), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.93-1.14). AF was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalizations in the total population (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14-1.46), HFmrEF (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.20-2.24), and HFpEF (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17-1.83), but not HFrEF (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87-1.18). AF was only associated with CV in the HFpEF subcategory but was associated with stroke in all three HF subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

AF appears to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization in HFmrEF and HFpEF. With these findings, the paucity of data and treatment guidelines on AF in the HFmrEF subgroup becomes even more significant and warrant further investigations.

Device therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Device therapy is a nonpharmacological approach that presents a crucial advancement for managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This review investigated the impact of device-based interventions and emphasized their potential for optimizing treatment for this complex patient demographic. Cardiac resynchronization therapy, augmented by atrioventricular node ablation with His-bundle pacing or left bundle-branch pacing, is effective for enhancing cardiac function and establishing atrioventricular synchrony. Cardiac contractility modulation and vagus nerve stimulation represent novel strategies for increasing myocardial contractility and adjusting the autonomic balance. Left ventricular expanders have demonstrated short-term benefits in HFpEF patients but require more investigation for long-term effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with AF. Research gaps regarding complications arising from left ventricular expander implantation need to be addressed. Device-based therapies for heart valve diseases, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, show promise for patients with AF and HFpEF, particularly those with mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. Clinical evaluations show that these device therapies lessen AF occurrence, improve exercise tolerance, and boost left ventricular diastolic function. However, additional studies are required to perfect patient selection criteria and ascertain the long-term effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Our review underscores the significant potential of device therapy for improving the outcomes and quality of life for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Adverse Events Requiring Hospitalization Following Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with versus without Systolic Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in individuals with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF), particularly concerning the occurrence of post-procedural adverse events necessitating hospitalization, including anticoagulant-associated major bleeding, still lack conclusive determination.

METHODS

Data from patients with HF and AF who underwent catheter ablation for AF between 2019 and 2022 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. All participants were divided into an EF < 50% group or an EF ≥ 50% group according to their baseline left ventricular EF. The composite incidence of the clinical events following catheter ablation was compared between the two groups: (1) all-cause death, (2) HF hospitalization, (3) stroke or systemic embolism, and (4) major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (75 years old, 68 male) were included. Of them, 62 (50.8%) patients had an EF ≥ 50%. EF ≥ 50% was an independent predictor of the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio 6.07, 95% confidence interval 1.37-26.99, p = 0.018). The incidences of each adverse event were not significantly different between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of major bleeding in the EF ≥ 50% group (12.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF coupled with AF, the incidence of adverse events following AF ablation proved notably elevated in patients with EF ≥ 50% in contrast to their counterparts with EF < 50%. This disparity primarily stems from a heightened occurrence of major bleeding within the EF ≥ 50% cohort. The strategy to reduce adverse events, especially in patients with EF ≥ 50%, remains the next concern.

Association of HFA-PEFF score with clinical outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The Heart Failure Association Pretest assessment, echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, functional testing and final aetiology (HFA-PEFF) score has been developed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which is frequently associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to investigate whether preprocedural HFA-PEFF score could be used to predict clinical outcomes in patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation (CA).

METHODS

Overall, 1679 patients with AF who underwent primary CA (71±10 years, 1218 males (72.5%), median follow-up duration 3.3 years) from July 2011 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. HFpEF was defined as an HFA-PEFF score ≥5. The primary study outcome was 5-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which is a composite of all-cause death, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF) and hospitalisation for stroke.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HFpEF was 32.3%, but only 7.7% were diagnosed with HF at the time of CHADS2 scoring. Five-year MACCE occurred in 77 patients (4.6%). The cumulative 5-year incidence of MACCE was significantly higher in the HFpEF group than in the non-HFpEF group (11.2% vs 4.8% at 5 years, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, HFpEF by the HFA-PEFF score was associated with MACCE (adjusted HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.65, p=0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Early detection of HFpEF using the HFA-PEFF score may have clinical applications in guiding therapeutic decision-making and improving prognosis by preventing HF and stroke in patients with AF undergoing CA.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation with a Novel Fully 3D-Mapping-Integrated Multi-Electrode Radiofrequency Balloon Catheter

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), as the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, has emerged a widely used therapy for patients suffering from AF. To improve PVI efficiency, single-shot catheters (SSCs) have been developed. Regrettably, SSCs are not integrated into 3D-mapping technology. In that regard, a novel radiofrequency balloon catheter (RFBC, Heliostar, Biosense Webster) with full integration into 3D-mapping technology has been developed. The aim of this study was to assess operative and follow-up outcomes of the RFBC in AF patients. In this monocentric prospective registry, patients with a first-time PVI using the RFBC were included. Follow-up visits were scheduled 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after ablation and in case of symptoms. A total of 171 patients (36.8% female) were included, with a mean age of 68.5 ± 10.2 years. Among them, 63 patients (36.8%) presented with persistent AF. Notably, no major periprocedural complications were observed. The mean follow-up period was 287 ± 157 days. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the estimated recurrence-free survival after 12 months was 81.8%. Based on our data, PVI with the fully 3D-mapping-integrated RFBC seems to be safe and effective and to have a favorable 12-month outcome in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF.

Ablation for atrial fibrillation improves the outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have worse clinical outcomes than those with sinus rhythm (SR). We aim to investigate whether maintaining SR in patients with HFpEF through a strategy such as AF ablation would improve outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cohort study that analysed 1034 patients (median age 69 [63-76] years, 46.2% [478/1034] female) with HFpEF and AF. Of these, 392 patients who underwent first-time AF ablation were assigned to the ablation group, and the remaining 642 patients, who received only medical therapy, were assigned to the no ablation group. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the ablation group compared to the no ablation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82], P = 0.003) in the propensity score-matched model. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that the benefit of AF ablation was mainly driven by a reduction in rehospitalization for worsening heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.80], P = 0.003). Patients in the ablation group showed a 33% relative decrease in atrial tachycardia/AF recurrence compared to the no ablation group (adjusted HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54-0.84], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF and AF, the strategy of AF ablation to maintain SR was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of all-cause death or rehospitalization for worsening heart failure.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Opportunities

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are highly prevalent cardiac disorders worldwide, and both are associated with poor prognosis. The incidence of AF and HF has been increasing substantially in recent years, mainly due to the progressive aging of the population. These disorders often coexist, and may have a causal relationship, with one contributing to the development or progression of the other. AF is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients, including mortality, hospitalization, and stroke. Although the optimal treatment for AF with HF remains unclear, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a promising treatment option. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of CA for managing AF in HF patients. In addition, the potential benefits and risks associated with CA are also discussed. We will also explore the factors that may influence treatment outcomes and highlight the remaining gaps in knowledge in this field.

A review of the impact, pathophysiology, and management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have increased mortality and increased risk of stroke. Due to the heterogeneous nature of both disease processes, it is difficult to ascertain whether the diagnosis and progression of AF is the cause of deterioration or if it is a symptom of worsening heart failure. This presents physicians with a clinical conundrum of whether optimizing their heart failure will decrease the overall AF burden or if restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary to optimize patients with HFpEF. In this paper, we will review the impact of AF in patients with HFpEF, the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of HFpEF and AF, and the management of these patients. As HFpEF and AF become more prevalent, managing these disease processes needs standardization to improve outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay between AF and HFpEF to help determine the best management strategy.

Efficacy of Early Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation After Admission for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Advances in catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) have improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) and AF. However, its optimal timing remains to be fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of early CA in patients with HF and AF hospitalized for worsening HF.

METHODS

From JROADHF (Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) (n = 13,238), patients with HF and AF who underwent CA within 90 days after admission for HF (early CA; n = 103) and those who did not (control; n = 2,683) were identified. Mortality was compared between these groups in the crude cohort, as well as in the propensity-matched cohort (n = 83 in each group).

RESULTS

In the crude cohort, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early CA group than in the control group (log-rank P < 0.001; HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.24-0.60). In the matched cohort, all-cause mortality was likewise significantly lower in the early CA group (log-rank P = 0.014; HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.88). Cardiovascular death and HF mortality were significantly lower in both cohorts (crude: Gray' test: P < 0.001 and P = 0.005; subdistribution HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13-0.63] and HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.13-0.75]; matched: Gray's test: P = 0.006 and P = 0.017; subdistribution HR: 0.24 [95% CI: 0.08-0.70] and HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.84], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide representative real-world cohort, CA for AF within 90 days after admission for HF was associated with improved long-term outcomes, including cardiovascular and HF death in patients with HF and AF.

Effect of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Mid-Range or Preserved Ejection Fraction - Pooled Analysis of the AF Frontier Ablation Registry and Hokuriku-Plus AF Registry

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized trial demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) is associated with a reduction in death or heart failure. However, the effect of catheter ablation for AF in patients with heart failure with mid-range or preserved EF is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We screened 899 AF patients (72.4% male, mean age 68.4 years) with heart failure and left ventricular EF ≥40% from 2 Japanese multicenter AF registries: the Atrial Fibrillation registry to Follow the long-teRm Outcomes and use of aNTIcoagulants aftER Ablation (AF Frontier Ablation Registry) as the ablation group (525 patients who underwent ablation) and the Hokuriku-Plus AF Registry as the medical therapy group (374 patients who did not undergo ablation). Propensity score matching was performed in these 2 registries to yield 106 matched patient pairs. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure. At 24.6 months, the ablation group had a significantly lower incidence of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.70; P=0.004) than the medical therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation for AF in patients with heart failure and mid-range or preserved EF was associated with a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently develop atrial fibrillation (AF). There are no randomized trials examining the effects of AF ablation on HFpEF outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of AF ablation vs usual medical therapy on markers of HFpEF severity, including exercise hemodynamics, natriuretic peptide levels, and patient symptoms.

METHODS

Patients with concomitant AF and HFpEF underwent exercise right heart catheterization and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. HFpEF was confirmed with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg on exercise. Patients were randomized to AF ablation vs medical therapy, with investigations repeated at 6 months. The primary outcome was change in peak exercise PCWP on follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients (mean age: 66.1 years; 51.6% females, 80.6% persistent AF) were randomized to AF ablation (n = 16) vs medical therapy (n = 15). Baseline characteristics were comparable across both groups. At 6 months, ablation reduced the primary outcome of peak PCWP from baseline (30.4 ± 4.2 to 25.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in peak relative VO2 (20.2 ± 5.9 to 23.1 ± 7.2 mL/kg/min; P < 0.01), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (794 ± 698 to 141 ± 60 ng/L; P = 0.04), and MLHF (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure) score (51 ± -21.9 to 16.6 ± 17.5; P < 0.01). No differences were detected in the medical arm. Following ablation, 50% no longer met exercise right heart catheterization-based criteria for HFpEF vs 7% in the medical arm (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

AF ablation improves invasive exercise hemodynamic parameters, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with concomitant AF and HFpEF.

Are arrhythmias the drivers of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? A review

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for approximately 25-30% of all-cause mortality and 40% of cardiovascular mortality in properly adjudicated large clinical trials. The mechanism of SCD in HFpEF remains unknown but thought to be driven by arrhythmic events. Apart from atrial fibrillation, which is prevalent in approximately 45% of HFpEF patients, the true burden of other cardiac arrhythmias in HFpEF remains undetermined. The incidence and risk of clinically significant advanced cardiac conduction disease with bradyarrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias remain less known. Recommendations have been made for long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and clarify mechanisms and mode of death in HFpEF patients. In animal studies, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD are significantly elevated in HFpEF animals compared with controls without heart failure. In humans, these studies are scant, with a few published small-size studies suggesting an increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in HFpEF. Higher rates of clinically significant conduction disease and cardiac pacing are seen in HFpEF compared with the general population. Excepting atrial fibrillation, the predictive effect of other arrhythmias on heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and precisely SCD remains unknown. Given the high occurrence of SCD in the HFpEF population, it could potentially become a target for therapeutic interventions if driven by arrhythmias. Studies to address these knowledge gaps are urgently warranted. In this review, we have summarized data on arrhythmias and SCD in HFpEF while highlighting avenues for future research in this area.

Impact of Structural Abnormalities in Left Ventricle and Left Atrium on Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Two key echocardiographic parameters, left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and left atrial volume index (LAVI), are important in assessing structural myocardial changes in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes among groups classified by LVMI and LAVI values are unclear.We examined the data of 960 patients with HFpEF hospitalized due to acute decompensated HF from the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry, a prospective, multicenter observational study. Four groups were classified according to the cut-off values of LVMI and LAVI [LVMI = 95 g/m2 (female), 115 g/m2 (male) and LAVI = 34 mL/m2]. Clinical endpoints were the composite of HF readmission and all-cause death. Study endpoints among the 4 groups were evaluated. The composite endpoint occurred in 364 patients (37.9%). Median follow-up duration was 445 days. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significant differences in the composite endpoint among the 4 groups (P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated that patients with increased LAVI alone were at significantly higher risk of HF readmission and the composite endpoints than those with increased LVMI alone (P = 0.030 and P = 0.024, respectively). Age, male gender, systolic blood pressure at discharge, atrial fibrillation (AF) hemoglobin, renal function, and LAVI were significant determinants of LVMI and female gender, AF, hemoglobin, and LVMI were significant determinants of LAVI.In HFpEF patients, increased LAVI alone was more strongly associated with HF readmission and the composite of HF readmission and all-cause death than those with increased LVMI alone.

Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Limited data are available on the outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CBA in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AF referred for CBA-based PVI from two highly experienced electrophysiology centres were included in this retrospective study. Of 651 patients undergoing CBA, 471 cases were divided into four groups: No HF (n = 255), HFpEF (n = 101), HFmrEF (n = 78), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n = 37). Similar early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was found among groups (16.2% vs. 15.4% vs. 14.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.798), and no significant difference of long-term sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance was identified among the HFmrEF, HFpEF, and No HF groups (71.8% vs. 75.2% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.334). CBA is safe for patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF with similar complications compared with the No HF group (3.8% vs. 4.0% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.814). The reassessment of cardiac function after CBA showed that patients with HF indicated beneficial outcomes. Left atrial diameter (LAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly improved in the HFmrEF group. There were 41.6% of patients in the HFpEF group who were completely relieved from HF. LAD and New York Heart Association (NYHA) were associated with recurrence in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, and the maintenance of SR was an independent predictor of NYHA improvement for all HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from CBA with high SR maintenance and significant HF improvement.

Catheter Ablation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To investigate the association between catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality as well as hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.

METHODS

Patients with first-time catheter ablation for AF (ablation group) compared to only medical treated AF patients (no ablation group) were identified from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry between 2005 and 2019. The primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:2 propensity score (PS) matched cohort and pre-specified EF subgroups (preserved EF [HFpEF] [EF≥50%], mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF] [EF 40% to 49%], reduced EF [HFrEF] [EF<40%]) of this cohort.

RESULTS

452 patients in the ablation and 43766 patients in the no ablation group were identified. After PS matching, 434 patients in the ablation group were compared to 868 patients in the no ablation group. Over a median follow-up of 2.6 years (min. 0.0 years - max. 14.1 years), catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI,0.65-0.94]). Results were consistent across all EF subgroups. In HFpEF, catheter ablation was also associated with a lower risk of recurrent HF hospitalization (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.17 [95%CI,0.07-0.42]).

CONCLUSION

In HF patients across the EF spectrum, catheter ablation for AF was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization). This study supports catheter ablation as a treatment option for AF in HF patients, including those with HFpEF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Putative protective effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on atrial fibrillation through risk factor modulation and off-target actions: potential mechanisms and future directions

Atrial fibrillation, the most common cardiac arrhythmia, results in substantial morbidity and mortality related to its increased risks of stroke, heart failure, and impaired cognitive function. The incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the general population is rising, making atrial fibrillation treatment and management of its risk factors highly relevant clinical targets. One well-studied risk factor for the development of atrial fibrillation is diabetes mellitus. Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), common medications used to treat diabetes mellitus, have been observed to decrease the incidence of atrial fibrillation. This review discusses the SGLT2 and its role in glucose homeostasis, molecules inhibiting the transporter, possible physiological mechanisms responsible for the decreased incident atrial fibrillation in patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors and proposes mechanistic studies to further our understanding of the biological processes involved.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential of CA to benefit AF patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Hypothesis

CA may be safe and effective for patients with HFpEF.

Methods

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating CA for AF patients with HFpEF.

Results

A total of seven trials with 1696 patients were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar procedure and fluoroscopy time regarding the use of CA for patients with HFpEF and without HF (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.01–0.81, p = .05 and [WMD: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.18–0.28, p = .68]). Moreover, CA was effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with HFpEF and noninferior for patients without HF [risk ratio (RR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76–1.10, p = .34). Additionally, CA tended to significantly maintain SR (RR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.86–12.03, p = .001) and reduce rehospitalization for HF compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19–0.71, p = .003). However, no significant differences were found between two groups regarding the mortality rate (p = .59).

Conclusion

CA is a potential treatment strategy for patients with HFpEF and demonstrates equivalent efficacy to that of patients without HF. Moreover, the benefits of CA in maintaining SR and reducing rehospitalization of HF patients were significantly better than those of medical therapy. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Long-term mortality of patients ablated for atrial fibrillation: a retrospective, population-based epidemiological study in Apulia, Italy

OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Data on long-term risk and mortality after catheter ablation for AF are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate all-cause mortality and the long-term risk of death in patients who underwent catheter ablation for AF compared with the general population.

DESIGN

Retrospective, population-based epidemiological study.

SETTING

We analysed data from patients residing in Apulia region who underwent AF ablation between January 2009 and June 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

1260 patients (914 male, mean age 60±11 years).

OUTCOMES

Vital status and dates of death to 31 December 2019 were obtained by using regional Health Information System. The expected number of deaths was derived using mortality rates from the general regional population by considering age-specific and gender-specific death probability provided for each calendar year by the Italian National Institute of Statistics. Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated by dividing the observed number of deaths among patients by the expected number of deaths estimated from the general population.

RESULTS

During follow-up (6449 person-years), 95 deaths were observed (1.47 deaths per 100 person-years). Although overall long-term mortality after AF ablation was not different to that of the general population (SMR 1.05 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.28; p=0.658)), the number of observed events was significantly increased in patients with heart failure (HF) at baseline or who developed HF during follow-up (SMR 2.40 (1.69 to 3.41; p<0.001) and 1.75 (1.17 to 2.64; p=0.007), respectively) and reduced in those without (SMR 0.63 (0.47 to 0.86; p=0.003)).

CONCLUSION

Long-term mortality of patients undergoing AF ablation is similar to that of the general population. Patients with HF had an increased risk while those without seem to have a better risk profile.